A J Cox1, P Zhang2, D W Bowden3, B Devereaux4, P M Davoren5, A W Cripps2, N P West6. 1. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Parklands Drive, 4215 Southport, QLD, Australia; School of Medical Science, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia. Electronic address: a.cox@griffith.edu.au. 2. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Parklands Drive, 4215 Southport, QLD, Australia. 3. Centre for Diabetes Research and Department of Biochemistry, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, USA. 4. Digestive Diseases Queensland, Chermside, QLD, Australia. 5. Diabetes and Endocrinology, Gold Coast University Hospital, Australia. 6. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Parklands Drive, 4215 Southport, QLD, Australia; School of Medical Science, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: Relationships between the intestinal microbiota, intestinal permeability and inflammation in the context of risk for obesity-associated disease continue to be of interest. The aim of the study was to examine the associations between intestinal permeability and type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: A total of 130 individuals with T2D (age: 57.5±6.2 years (mean±SD); BMI: 30.4±3.2; 45% female) and 161 individuals without T2D (age: 37.4±12.5 years; BMI: 25.1±3.9; 65% female) were included in the study. Assessment of intestinal permeability included measurement of circulating lipopolysaccharide (LPS), LPS-binding protein (LBP) and intestinal fatty acid binding protein (iFABP) concentrations, which were used for calculation of a derived permeability risk score (PRS). Associations between permeability measures and T2D status were assessed using logistic regression models. RESULTS: LBP (∼34%, P<0.001), iFABP (∼46%, P<0.001) and the PRS (∼24% P<0.001) were all significantly higher in the T2D affected individuals. Individuals with a PRS in the upper tertile were 5.07 times more likely (CI: 1.72-14.95; P=0.003) to have T2D when models were adjusted for age, sex and BMI. There was a trend towards improved prediction when including the PRS in models containing age, sex and BMI (AUC: 0.954 versus 0.962; P=0.06). CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate differences in measures of intestinal permeability between individuals with and without T2D. The utility of using intestinal permeability measures as a tool for predicting T2D risk in at risk individuals should be further investigated.
AIM: Relationships between the intestinal microbiota, intestinal permeability and inflammation in the context of risk for obesity-associated disease continue to be of interest. The aim of the study was to examine the associations between intestinal permeability and type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: A total of 130 individuals with T2D (age: 57.5±6.2 years (mean±SD); BMI: 30.4±3.2; 45% female) and 161 individuals without T2D (age: 37.4±12.5 years; BMI: 25.1±3.9; 65% female) were included in the study. Assessment of intestinal permeability included measurement of circulating lipopolysaccharide (LPS), LPS-binding protein (LBP) and intestinal fatty acid binding protein (iFABP) concentrations, which were used for calculation of a derived permeability risk score (PRS). Associations between permeability measures and T2D status were assessed using logistic regression models. RESULTS:LBP (∼34%, P<0.001), iFABP (∼46%, P<0.001) and the PRS (∼24% P<0.001) were all significantly higher in the T2D affected individuals. Individuals with a PRS in the upper tertile were 5.07 times more likely (CI: 1.72-14.95; P=0.003) to have T2D when models were adjusted for age, sex and BMI. There was a trend towards improved prediction when including the PRS in models containing age, sex and BMI (AUC: 0.954 versus 0.962; P=0.06). CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate differences in measures of intestinal permeability between individuals with and without T2D. The utility of using intestinal permeability measures as a tool for predicting T2D risk in at risk individuals should be further investigated.
Authors: Brian D Piccolo; James L Graham; Kimber L Stanhope; Intawat Nookaew; Kelly E Mercer; Sree V Chintapalli; Umesh D Wankhade; Kartik Shankar; Peter J Havel; Sean H Adams Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Naiomy Deliz Rios-Arce; Fraser L Collins; Jonathan D Schepper; Michael D Steury; Sandi Raehtz; Heather Mallin; Danny T Schoenherr; Narayanan Parameswaran; Laura R McCabe Journal: Adv Exp Med Biol Date: 2017 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Jacquelyn M Walejko; Seungbum Kim; Ruby Goel; Eileen M Handberg; Elaine M Richards; Carl J Pepine; Mohan K Raizada Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2018-07-23 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Candice Colbey; Amanda J Cox; David B Pyne; Ping Zhang; Allan W Cripps; Nicholas P West Journal: Sports Med Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 11.136